Replying to LO25186 --
Shalom LOers,
At, you wrote:
>...snip...
>I created these three words (meta-, ortho- anda para-moia) so as to link
>to the remarkable chemistry of benzene C6H6 due to its aromaticity. I
>linked to
>this chemistry to draw from the "associativity" pattern
> X * Y * Z
>of the essentiality wholeness. In the case of benzene chemistry
>it is the associative pattern
> C6H5 * N * O2
>for ortho and para behaviour because of the "pulling out"
>(taking) action of O2 on aromaticity electrons, or
> C6H5 * N * H2
>for meta behaviour because of "pushing in" (giving) action
>of H2 on aromaticity electrons. With this I wanted to stress
>that metanoic organisations are aware of "what can we give"
>rather than "what can we take".
Yes, sure, At - I read these contributions with much interest (elementary
organic chemistry is one of the few "languages" i understand).
From your words, one can erroneously derive AS IF the terms "give" and
"take" are distinguishable in organizing just like in chemistry.
In the reality of team work and collaboration among people it frequently
happens that one of the members undertakes a certain behavior for the sake
of the "whole". Interesting examples can be found in the field experiences
described by W. Bion (as well as many other writings about group-life)
where the group's culture denies certain patterns of it's own needs and
behavior. In such cases, the "bad" behavior that is oppressed is acted out
by one of the members - such a member "holds" the unaccepted pattern for
the whole group. If you are familiar with research in family dynamics, you
certainly know about such stereotypes.
Unlike with atoms and molecules, you can rarely tell
'heaven" from "hell" ... you have to wait for TRUTH to reveal itself.
>You will perhaps not believe me, but many a post graduate student in
>botany or zoology today are completely unaware of this "evolutionary path"
>of the terminology which they use. You ought to believe me when I confess
>that I self was completely unaware of it in the terminology of chemistry
>and physics as a post graduate student many years ago.
On the contrary - I believe (due to experience) that so it is - and think
that so it should be.
During more than twenty years of research and lecturing in pure math, I
doubt if we (my colleagues and students) could go any further, had we
allowed ourselves the pleasure to trace systematically the origins of the
concepts we borrowed from "ordinary language" into our occupation. Just
think of terms like "perfect", "satisfaction" (used for equations),
"positive vs. negative" or "mean" ;-).
As I already mentioned, we should be very careful with analogies,
especially at those (sometimes HIDDEN) points where the analogy is
different from the subject of discussion.
Shalom and all the best,
Judy
Dr. Judy R. Tal
LCL-Learning Cycles (1999)
+972 3 6997903
+972 54 666294
judyt@netvision.net.il
--Judy Tal <judyt@netvision.net.il>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.